Bull Eng Geol Environ (2018) 77:1057–1068

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1182-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model

tests for single pile under lateral load
Jinmei Dong 1,2 & Fan Chen 1,3 & Mi Zhou 4 & Xiaowen Zhou 2

Received: 21 January 2017 / Accepted: 16 October 2017 / Published online: 26 October 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract Model tests of pile foundations have been widely distance of container boundary to the pile center is larger than
used to assess tlateral bearing capacities. The difference be- 15 times the pile diameter. A formula was proposed, based on
tween the measured and the real lateral bearing capacity of FE results, to predict the difference of lateral bearing capacity
pile foundation may exist due to the boundary effect, and this of a circular pile in uniform clay induced by the boundary
issue has not been studied thoroughly in the past. This paper, effect.
therefore, describes an extensive investigation of the boundary
effect of a model container on the lateral bearing capacity of a
circular pile foundation in uniform clay through finite element Keywords Model test . Pile . Clay . Boundary effect . FE
(FE) analysis. Prior to parametric study, the FE model was
validated by comparing with the centrifuge test results and
good agreement was obtained. Based on the parametric study,
including various container sizes and soil properties, it can be Notation
concluded that the boundary effect on circular pile lateral D Diameter of pile
bearing capacity can be significantly eliminated when the Di Inner diameter of pipe pile
Es Young’s modulus of clay
Ep Young’s modulus of pile
* Mi Zhou Ff Horizontal resistance of single pile at finite boundary
zhoumi@scut.edu.cn
Finf Horizontal resistance of single pile at infinite
boundary
Jinmei Dong
djmnj802@163.com HBD Width of the model test soil container
Hdis/D The ratio of horizontal displacement to diameter
Fan Chen
of pile
cf19920417@njtech.edu.cn
K0 Horizontal earth pressure coefficient
Xiaowen Zhou L Length of pile
xwzhou@scut.edu.cn
R Pile radius
1
Ri Inner radius of Pipe pile
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech. University, 200
North Zhongshan Rd., Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
su Undrained shear strength of clay
2
VBD Depth of the model test soil container
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, School of
Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of
γ′c Effective unit weight of clay
Technology, Guangzhou, China α Interface friction coefficient
3
Nanjing Municipal Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd,
ν Poisson’s ratio of clay
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China νp Poisson’s ratio of pile
4
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, School of
φ Friction angle of clay
Civil and Transportation Engineering, South China University of ψ Dilation angle of clay
Technology, 381 Wushan Road, Guangzhou 510640, China ηb Boundary effect coefficient, = Ff/Finf
1058
Introduction
Owing to limited space, model tests, including centrifuge tests
and full-scale model tests, have been widely used in the on-
shore and offshore engineering practice to reproduce the in-
situ stress conditions of soil foundations. However, the bound-
aries induced by model test containers may distort the stress
and strain fields and affect the performance of piles. Based on
previous published data, for estimating the lateral bearing ca-
pacity, it can be concluded that the distance from boundary to
pile center should be larger than 20D to avoid the boundary
effect (Chandrasekaran et al. 2010; Goit and Saitoh 2013;
McVay et al. 1998; Anagnostopoulos and Georgiadis 1993).
However, numerous model tests cannot reach to 20D due to
limitations of soil container dimensions. The soil containers
varying from 4D to15D have been widely used in model tests
and centrifuge tests (Liu et al. 2010a, b; Tamura et al. 2009).
Consequently, the boundary effect should exist in those tests.
Due to this potential boundary effect, pile bearing capacity can
be overestimated in the tests. Hence, it is important to quantify
the boundary effect clearly in order to predict the pile behavior
more accurately in the model tests.
Investigations on boundary effects of single pile bearing
capacities have been conducted previously (Bolton et al.
1999; Conte et al. 2013; Kelesoglu and Springman 2011;
Matlock 1970, Rahmani and Pak 2012; Said et al. 2009;
Teymur and Madabhushi 2003; Ullah et al. 2014; Zhou et al.
2016a, b, c). However, those studies mainly focused on two
issues: (1) the container’s boundary effect on an earthquake
wave; (2) the boundary effect induced by a container or a
material interface on a penetrating pile or penetrometers.
Zhou et al. (2016a, b, c) studied the boundary effect from
the material interface aspect on the soil flow mechanism of
ball penetrometers through larger deformation finite element
analysis. It was found that the bottom soil strength has an
influence on the advancing ball penetrometer’s penetrating
resistance. The boundary effect on a soil foundation under
earthquake loading in a centrifuge test has been studied by
Teymur and Madabhushi (2003).The conclusions indicate that
the boundary effects of the soil container are important and
can lead to inaccurate simulation of a field situation that has
infinite lateral extent. Also, the soil profile has contributed to
the boundary effects for dynamic problems. The boundary
effects of a conical shaped pile foundation, namely spudcan,
penetrating into single uniform clay has been investigated by
Ullah et al. (2014), and it was found that the boundary has
significant effect on the spudcan penetration resistance and
soil flow mechanism, while the strong box size was less than
0.8 times that of spudcan diameter(~10m). The conclusion of
Ullah et al. 2014 also shows that, in contrast to a smooth
boundary, a rough boundary can increase the penetration re-
sistance by a maximum amount of ~11%. Scale effects and
boundary effects of a cone penetrometer’s behaviour in a
J. Dong et al.
centrifuge were investigated by Bolton et al. (1999), and the
results show that the cone penetrometer should be performed
at least 10 times the diameter of cone away from any hard
boundaries. Phillips and Valsangkar (1987) reported results
of a series of tests for investigating the boundary effects of
cone penetration resistance in granular soils in centrifuge test-
ing, and it was observed that the cone penetration resistance
increases significantly as the tip of the probe approaches the
bottom of the container within 12 times the diameter of the
probe from the bottom of the container. Bearing capacity of
piles has been addressed through finite element (FE) analyses
by other researchers (Conte et al. 2013; Kelesoglu and
Springman 2011; Rahmani and Pak 2012; Said et al. 2009).
Circular and square shaped piles have been widely studied
in previous model tests (Georgiadis and Anagnostopoulos
1998; Liu et al. 2010a, b; Kong and Zhang 2007; Tamura
et al. 2009). Circular piles and square shaped soil containers
are the most popular setting for a model test, and are chosen
for the present study.
The present paper reports the results from an extensive
parametric investigation carried out through FE analysis for
the boundary effect of a single pile in a model test soil con-
tainer in an attempt to provide a better understanding of lateral
bearing capacity of a single pile in model tests. The boundary
effect of a soil container on lateral bearing capacity is defined
as the ratio of the bearing capacity of the pile in finite bound-
aries to that in infinite boundaries. A formula was proposed to
quantify the boundary effect of a soil container on a single
pile’s lateral bearing capacity in model tests.
Problem definition
This study considered a circular solid pile of diameter (D) and
length (L) pre-embedded in a uniform clay, and horizontal
load was applied at the pile head to assess the pile lateral
bearing capacity in a soil container. This is illustrated sche-
matically in Fig. 1. The horizontal boundary width (HBD) and
vertical boundary distance (VBD) were defined as the width
and depth of the soil container, respectively. The HBD was
varied from 2D to 20D and VBD was varied from 1.2L to 4L.
The numerical analyses were performed using a finite element
software named ABAQUS. A 20-node quadratic brick with
reduced integration elements was used for soil and pile mate-
rial. Surface-to-surface contact constraints enforced with a
penalty method was adopted to simulate the interaction be-
tween the soil and the pile. Both normal and tangential contact
were adopted between the lateral surface of the pile and the
surrounding soil, while only normal contact was adopted be-
tween the bottom of pile and the soil. For most cases , α=1
was conducted to simulate the rough condition of the typical
cast-in-situ piles condition, as the interface of cast-in-situ con-
crete and soil is pretty rough (Zhou et al. 2016b). And the
Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model tests for single pile under lateral load
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of model test in uniform clay
effect of roughness also has been considered by varying α
from 0 to 1, which is shown in group F as shown in Table 1,
which proves that it has minimal effect on the boundary effect.
That is to say that the boundary effect is constant in both the
condition of total rough condition(α=1) for considering the
cast-in-site pile behavior and the condition of 0<α<1 for con-
sidering the precast pile. Coulomb friction law was specified
calculating tangent contact force.
Separation between pile sand soil is allowed for the inter-
action, and the small sliding condition is conducted. Figure 2
shows a typical finite mesh density of a single pile in a soil
container. It can be shown in Fig. 2 that mesh refinement was
used in the regions surrounding the piles, in order to ensure the
accuracy of the computing results (Trochanis et al. 1991). The
fine mesh criteria of Hmin/D = 1/40 was used in the FE model,
where Hmin is the minimum element size.
The vertical boundaries were fixed in a horizontal direction
and set free in a vertical direction, and the bottom boundary
was restrained in both horizontal and vertical directions. To
quantify the boundary effect of a single circular pile in a soil
container, a detailed parametric study programme is listed in
Table 1.
In order to choose realistic soil and concrete pile parame-
ters, a survey was carried out through reported pile-soil tests.
(Allersma et al. 1999; Cui 2012; Matlock 1970; Reese et al.
2001; Rollins et al. 2006; Xing et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2006;
Zhang et al. 1999). The effective unit weight (γ’c) 6.6 kN/m3
of the uniform clay was adopted in all analyses. The interface
friction coefficient, α, varied between 0 and 1. The penalty
factor α was adopted to simulate the standard interaction
1059
contact to capture the tangential behaviour in ABAQUS.
Interface elements in ABAQUS cannot be prescribed by con-
stant αSu, so a thin layer of soil elements along the circular
pile prescribed a reduced shear strength. This method has been
adopted successfully in small strain finite element analyses for
considering the interaction between the pile and the soil
(Supachawarote et al. 2004; Gourvenec and Barnett
2011;Gourvenec and Mana 2011). The Coulomb friction law
can also be carried out for simulating the tangent contact force.
However, the soil with very thin layer elements around the
pile is the soil considering the shear strength penalty with
the shear strength of αSu, but not Su .The modulus of elasticity
of clay Es was typically arranged from 4 MPa to 40 MPa, and
the modulus of elasticity of the pile, Ep , was varied from 0.27
GPa to 10 GPa. It was suggested from the undrained shear
strength of clay, su was chosen to be from 20 kPa to 50 kPa
(Zhou et al. 2013; Ma et al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2016a, b, c).
The soil was modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
elastoplastic material, and the piles were modeled as idealized
elastic in all analyses. The Poisson’s ratio ν was set as 0.49 in
all analyses to simulate the fully undrained condition of clay.
Friction and dilation angles were set as φ = ψ = 0 in total stress
analysis.
Validation of the numerical model
The results from finite element analyses were validated
against the lateral resistance of experimental single pile tests.
To access the horizontal resistance of a single pile,
Anagnostopoulos and Georgiadis (1993) conducted a model
test, which was performed on an aluminum close-ended pile
of 19mm outside diameter and 1.5mm of wall thickness. The
pile was jacked into homogeneous soft substance with su = 28
kPa, and a lateral load of 100N was applied to the pile head
.The elasticity modulus of the soil and pile were taken as
10 MPa and 20 GPa, respectively. The axisymmetric soil do-
main was chosen as 30D in length and width and 10L in depth
to eliminate the boundary effect. Figure 3a shows a compari-
son between the model test and FE simulation (using these
parameters and adopting α = 0.4, K0 = 1). The frictional factor
α was chosen by experience, and the parametrical study also
confirmed that it has no effect on the results. K0=1 was chose
for the total stress analysis with considering the undrained
condition, in which it has been proved that it has minimal
effect on pile resistance (Zhou et al. 2016a; Zhou and
Randolph 2006). Figure 3a shows an excellent agreement with
the measured data from the model test.
Further validation was also carried out against the model
test data reported by Rollins et al. (1998) where a static lateral
load test of a steel single pile was performed in the field test. A
pipe pile of outside diameter 324mm and wall thickness
9.5mm and length 9.1m was conducted in the test (Ep =
1060 J. Dong et al.

Table 1 Summary of FE analyses performed on the boundary effect

Analysis HBD/D D/m VBD/L Es/Su Ep/Es α K0 νp Notes

Group A1 30 0.019 10 357 2000 0.4 1 0.27 Comparison with test data
Group A2 30 0.324 10 500 6400 0.4 1 0.27
Group A3* 30 0.3 1.1 – – 1 1 0.15
Group B1 2,3, 1 2 750 180 1 1 0.27 Investigation of the effect of a lateral boundary
4,6,
8,10,
12.5,15,17.520
Group B2 18.8, 0.5, 2 750 180 1 1 0.27
12.53,9.4, 0.75,
7.52 1,
25, 1.25
16.67,12.5,
10
Group C 9.4 1 1.2, 750 180 1 1 0.27 Investigation of the effect of a vertical boundary
12.5 2.0,
4.0
Group D 9.4 1 2 200, 180 1 1 0.27 Investigation of Es/Su on the boundary effect
12.5 300,
375,
500,
750,
1000
Group E 9.4 1 2 750 18, 1 1 0.27 Investigation of Ep/Es on the boundary effect
12.5 33.3,
66.7,
135,
180,
337.5,
675
Group F 9.4 1 2 750 180 0, 1 0.27 Investigation of the effect of friction coefficient
12.5 0.1, α on the boundary effect
0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,
0.6, 1
Group G 9.4 1 2 750 180 1 1, 0.27 Investigation of the effect of the geostatic stress
12.5 0.8, condition K0 on the boundary effect
0.6
Group H 9.4 1 2 750 180 1 1 0.16, Investigation of the effect of the Poisson’s ratio
12.5 0.21, of pile νp on the boundary effect
0.27

*Soil 1:Medium dense cemented silty sand layer, Su1=20kPa,Es1=13MPa,h1=3m; Soil 2: Medium dense to very dense silty sand with cemented lumps,
Su2=1kPa,Es2=13MPa,h2=2.5m; Pile: Ep = 2000GPa

80GPa), and a lateral load of 180kN was applied on the pile
head. The test data is for a pipe pile installed in clay with su =
25kPa (Es = 12.5MPa). The frictional coefficient α = 0.4 and
geostatic stress condition K0 = 1 were conducted in the FE
analysis. Figure 3b shows consistent profiles from the FE
analysis performed in the present study and filed test data.
The third case deals with a response of bored piles in lay-
ered soil under lateral load (Ismael 1990). The site of this load
test was in Kuwait. The circular pile of diameter of 0.3m and
length of 5m was chosen. The surface soil to a depth of 3m
was a medium dense cemented silty sand layer. The medium
dense cemented silty sand was also modeled by the MC mod-
el. Below this layer, it was a layer of medium dense to very
dense silty sand with cemented lumps to the bottom of the
borehole. Properties of the soil in this case are listed in
Table 1. The frictional coefficient α = 1 and geostatic stress
condition K0 = 1 were conducted in the FE analysis. The
comparison between the finite element results and field test
data is shown in Fig. 3c. It can be seen that the P-S curve of FE
results matched with the test data very well.
For the validation cases, the differential value of the P-S
Curve between FE results and test data of case 1 and case 2 is
little bit more than that of case 3, that may be because the
variation of parameters for case1 and case 2 is biggger than
that of case 3.These validation analyses confirmed the suit-
ability of the FE model in assessing the horizontal resistance
of a single pile in a soil container. The results from the para-
metric study listed in Table 1 are discussed in the following.
Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model tests for single pile under lateral load
Fig. 2 Model set-up and mesh
Results and discussion
Uncertainties in predicting the circular pile lateral bearing ca-
pacity induced by the boundary effect include: (a) the Young’s
modulus of clay Es; (b) the undrained shear strength of clay,
su; (c) the geostatic stress condition, K0; (d) the Young’s mod-
ulus of the pile, Ep; (e) the Poisson’s ratio of the pile vp; (f)pile-
soil interface frictional coefficient α, and (g) geometry of the
model test container. An improved understanding of the
boundary effect of a circular pile in the model test container
is essential for accurate prediction of the required under-
pressure for pile installation.
To quantify the boundary effect of single pile horizontal
resistance, the difference between the horizontal resistance
of a single pile in a finite boundary (finite boundary of soil
container) and that of in an infinite boundary is defined as
ηb = Ff/Finf, where the Ff is the pile lateral resistance in
the finite boundary condition and Finf is the pile lateral
resistance in an infinite boundary. All the analyses were
performed on the model piles with diameters D = 1m,
lengths L = 15m.
1061
Lateral boundary effect on pile bearing capacity
In order to investigate the effect of the lateral boundary
effect on pile horizontal bearing capacity, a typical group
of analysis cases have been carried out by varying horizon-
tal boundary dimensions, given that the ratio HBD/D varied
from 2 to 20, but the vertical boundary was kept constant
as VBD/L= 2, (Es = 15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α =
1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27. Group B1, Table 1). The effect of
lateral boundary dimensions is shown in Fig. 4. It can be
seen that the boundary effect coefficient ηb increases with
decreasing of lateral boundary HBD, and then trends to
stable at Hdis/D = 0.2 where the pile limiting horizontal
resistance was reached. For example, for the case of HBD/
D = 4 at Hdis/D = 1%, the horizontal resistance Ff is 46.74
kN for the finite boundary condition, while that resistance
Finf is 37.64 kN, consequently, ηb= Ff /Finf =1.242. With
larger displacement of Hdis/D = 0.2 for the case of HBD/D
= 4, the ηb decreases to 1.021. For the case of HBD/D = 6,
the ηb decreases from 1.134 to 1.020 with Hdis/D increasing
from 0.002 to 0.2. It can be seen that the boundary effect
coefficient ηb decreases with the increasing of the normal-
ized horizontal displacement Hdis/D. This is because pile
resistance attributed from soil increases faster than that at-
tributed to the fixed boundary with the same increasing
value of horizontal displacement Hdis/D. As is shown in
the Fig. 4b, with the same change for Hdis/D, the variation
range of equivalent plastic strain in the finite boundary is
bigger than that of in the infinite boundary condition. That
is to say that the pile resistance increases with the increas-
ing of Hdis/D due to the plastic zone development. It may
be due to the boundary effect that can only partially reflect
the increasing of soil horizontal resistance induced from the
pile, the increasing speed of pile resistance from soil resis-
tance is faster than that of the increase from the boundary
effect, consequently, the boundary effect coefficient ηb de-
creases with the increasing of the normalized horizontal
displacement Hdis/D. From Fig. 4a, it also can be observed
that the boundary effects can be avoided for HBD/D ≥15.
Thus, it is important to note the lateral boundary limit
required for pile lateral resistance in a soil container.
In order to enrich data, several analysis cases have been
carried out by varying the pile diameter D from 0.5m to
1.25m, but with identical lateral boundaries HBD = 9.4 and
12.5 m and other parameters VBD/L = 2, Es = 15MPa, su =
20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27(Group B2,
Table 1). The effect of HBD/D on lateral resistance by varying
the diameter is shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 the curves shift
upward with the increasing of diameter D. In Fig. 5a the pile
is in an ultimate state(Hdis/D=0.2), ηb ranges from 1.006 to
1.027 with D growing from 0.5 to 1.25; while in Fig. 5b, the
range of ηb is 1.005~1.017. The conclusion drawn in this part
is in accord with the one drawn in Fig. 4.
1062 J. Dong et al.

Fig. 3 Comparisons of Q-S 40

curves between FE analysis and
test data
30

Displacement ×10-2(mm)
test data
20
FE data

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Load(N)

(a) Case study 1 (HBD/D = 30 , VBD/L = 10 , Es = 10MPa, su = 28kPa, Ep = 20GPa, α =

0.4,K0 = 1, νp = 0.27; Group A1, Table 1)

50

displacement(mm) 40

30 test data
FE

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
load(kN)

(b) Case study 2(HBD/D = 30 , VBD/L = 10 , Es = 12.5MPa, su = 25kPa, Ep = 80GPa, α =

0.4, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27; Group A2,Table1)

25

20
Displacement(mm)

15
test data
FE data

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Load(kN)

(c) Case study 3(HBD/D = 30 , VBD/L = 1.1 , α = 1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27; Group A3,Table1)

Vertical boundary effect on pile bearing capacity different lateral boundaries HBD/D = 9.4 and 12.5 are investi-
gated, where HBD/D = 9.4 is the lateral boundary in a typical
In order to explore the effect of the vertical boundary effect on model test (Liu et al. 2010a, b) and HBD/D = 12.5 is the lateral
pile horizontal bearing capacity, a group of analysis cases with boundary in a typical centrifuge test(Tamura et al. 2009).
Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model tests for single pile under lateral load 1063

1.8
1.2

HBD/D = 2
1.6 HBD/D = 3
HBD/D = 4
HBD/D = 6
HBD/D = 8 D = 0.5m LBD/D = 18.8
ηb

1.4 HBD/D = 10 D = 0.75m LBD/D = 12.53

ηb
1.1
HBD/D = 12.5 D = 1m LBD/D = 9.4
HBD/D = 15 D = 1.25m LBD/D = 7.52
HBD/D = 17.5
1.2
HBD/D = 20

1.0 1.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Hdis/D Hdis/D
(a) (a) Effect of pile diameter D at HBD = 9.4

1.2

D = 0.5m HBD/D = 25
D = 0.75m HBD/D = 16.67
ηb

1.1
D = 1m HBD/D = 12.5
D = 1.25m HBD/D = 10

HBD/D = 6,Hdis/D = 0.05 HBD/D = 6,Hdis/D = 0.2 1.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Hdis/D
(b) Effect of pile diameter D at HBD = 12.5
Fig. 5 Effect of pile diameter D (D = 0.5~1.25m , VBD/L = 2, Es =
15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1,νp = 0.27; Group B2,
Table 1)

it can be concluded that the vertical boundary has a minimal

effect on pile horizontal bearing capacity in a soil container.
HBD/D = 30,Hdis/D = 0.05 HBD/D = 30,Hdis/D = 0.2 Numerous model tests and centrifuge tests show that the VBD/
L between 1.6 and 2.5 has been widely used in experimental
tests (Anagnostopoulos and Georgiadis 1993; Kong and Zhang
(b)
2007; Li et al. 2012; Li et al. 2010). Therefore, the standard case
Fig. 4 Effect of lateral boundary (HBD/D = 2~20 , VBD/L = 2, Es = with VBD/L=2 was chosen for numerical analysis in this paper.
15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27; Group B1,
Table 1)
Effect of the Es/su on the boundary effect

Identical HBD/D was adopted in all analysis cases, while the
vertical boundary VBD/L ranges from 1.2~4 and the other pa-
rameters remain the same as in Group B. (Es = 15MPa, su =
20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27. Group C, Table 1).
It is apparent that there is no significant difference for the cases
for varying VBD/D from 1.2 to 4. (see Fig. 6a and b). Therefore,
To examine the influence of Es/su on the boundary effect, a
group of analyses has been carried out varying Es/su, giving
Es/su = 200, 300, 375, 500, 750 and 1000, but with identical
HBD/D= 9.4 and 12.5(VBD/L= 2, Es = 4MPa, 15MPa ,20MPa,
su =20kPa, 30kPa, 40kPa ,50kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0= 1,
νp= 0.27; Group D, Table 1). Figure 7a shows clearly that the
1064 J. Dong et al.

1.10 1.16

1.14
1.08
1.12

1.10 Es/Su = 200

1.06 Es/Su = 300
Es/Su = 375
VBD/L = 1.2 1.08

ηb
Es/Su = 500
ηb

VBD/L = 2
1.04 Es/Su = 750
VBD/L = 4 1.06
Es/Su = 1000
1.04
1.02
1.02

1.00 1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Hdis/D Hdis/D

(a) Effect of vertical boundary at HBD/D = 9.4 (a) Effect of Es/Su at HBD/D = 9.4

1.05
1.08

1.04
1.06
Es/Su =200
Es/Su =300
1.03
Es/Su =375
ηb

VBD/L = 1.2 1.04 Es/Su =500

ηb

VBD/L = 2 Es/Su =750

1.02 VBD/L = 4 Es/Su =1000

1.02
1.01

1.00
1.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Hdis/D
Hdis/D
(b) Effect of Es/Su at HBD/D = 12.5
(b) Effect of vertical boundary at HBD/D = 12.5
Fig. 7 Effect of Es/su on boundary (su = 20~50kPa, Es = 4~20MPa, Es/su
Fig. 6 Effect of vertical boundary (VBD/L = 1.2~10, HBD/D = 9.4, 12.5, =200~1000, HBD/D = 9.4,12.5, VBD/L= 2, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0= 1, νp=
Es = 15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0= 1, νp= 0.27; Group C, 0.27; Group D, Table 1)
Table 1)

boundary effect decreases with the increasing of Es/su.
Furthermore, with the increasing of normalized horizontal dis-
placement Hdis/D, the boundary effect decreases significantly
and then reaches a steady state. While Hdis/D=0.002, the value
of ηb ranges from 1.132 to1.059, while Es/su increases from
200 to 1000. While Hdis/D=0.2, ηb ranges from 1.026 to
1.017, correspondingly. Figure 7b shows the influence of Es/
su on the boundary effect for normalized lateral distance HBD/
D= 12.5 and a similar observation was obtained as in Fig. 7a.
Based on the above analysis, it can be confirmed that the Es/su
has influence on the boundary effect.
Effect of Ep/Es on the boundary effect
A group of analysis cases with different Ep and Es was
chosen to examine the effect of the ratio of elasticity
modulus of the pile to Young’s modulus of soil Ep/Es
on the boundary effect. Figure 8a and b show the results
for HBD/D = 9.4 and 12.5, varying Ep/Es from 18 to 675,
but with identical HBD/D = 9.4, 12.5, VBD/L = 2, su =
20kPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27 (Group E, Table 1). For
HBD/D = 9.4(see Fig. 8a), with the increasing of the
ratio of elasticity modulus of the pile to Young’s modu-
lus of soil Ep/Es , the range of ηb increases and the
variation rate of the curve becomes larger. When normal-
ized displacement H dis /D = 0.002, η b increases from
1.018 to 1.132 with Ep/Es increasing from 18 to 675,
and when Hdis/D = 0.2, ηb varies from 1.009 to 1.026,
correspondingly. Similar conclusions can be obtained in
Fig. 8b for HBD/D=12.5. Thus, it can be concluded that
the greater Ep/Es is, the more influence of the boundary
effect on the pile horizontal resistance.
Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model tests for single pile under lateral load 1065

1.16 1.10

1.14
1.08
= 0
1.12 = 0.1
= 0.2
1.06
1.10 Ep/Es = 18 = 0.3
= 0.4
Ep/Es = 33.3

ηb
= 0.5
1.08 Ep/Es = 66.7 = 0.6
1.04
ηb

Ep/Es = 135 = 1
1.06 Ep/Es = 180
Ep/Es = 337.5 1.02
Ep/Es = 675
1.04

1.00
1.02
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

1.00 Hdis/D
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
(a)Effect of the interface friction coefficient α at HBD/D = 9.4
Hdis/D
(a) Effect of Ep/Es at HBD/D = 9.4 1.05

1.09 1.04
= 0
1.08 = 0.1
= 0.2
1.03 = 0.3
1.07
= 0.4

ηb
= 0.5
1.06
Ep/Es = 18 1.02 = 0.6
Ep/Es = 33.3 = 1
1.05
Ep/Es = 66.7
ηb

1.04 Ep/Es = 135 1.01

Ep/Es = 180
1.03 Ep/Es = 337.5
Ep/Es = 675 1.00
1.02 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

1.01 Hdis/D
(b) Effect of the interface friction coefficient α at HBD/D = 12.5
1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Fig. 9 Effect of the interface friction coefficient α on the boundary effect
(α = 0~1, HBD/D = 9.4, 12.5, VBD/L = 2, Es = 15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep=
Hdis/D 2.7GPa, K0 = 1, νp = 0.27; Group F, Table 1)
(b) Effect of Ep/Es at HBD/D = 12.5
Fig. 8 Effect of Ep/Es on boundary (Ep = 0.27~10GPa, Es = 4~40MPa, Effect of the geostatic stress condition K0 on the boundary
HBD/D = 9.4,12.5, VBD/L= 2, α = 1, K0= 1, νp= 0.27; Group E, Table 1) effect

To examine the influence of the geostatic stress condition,

Effect of the soil/pile interface friction coefficient α
on the boundary effect
To examine the influence of the soil/pile interface friction on
the boundary effect, several cases have been worked out by
varying the interface friction coefficient α from 0~1, with Es =
15MPa, su = 20kPa, Ep= 2.7GPa, K0= 1,νp= 0.27.The bound-
ary conditions remain the same as Group D (Group F,
Table 1). Figure 9a shows the influence of the interface fric-
tion coefficient α on the boundary effect. As can be seen, the
soil/pile interface friction coefficient has minimal effect on the
boundary effect. The influence of the soil/pile interface fric-
tion coefficient on the boundary effect is plotted in Fig. 9b.
Figure 9b shows a trend similar to Fig. 9a. This proves that the
pile/soil interface friction coefficient has a minimal influence
on the boundary effect.
analyses have been carried out by varying the coefficient of
lateral pressure, giving K0=0.6, 0.8 and 1, but with identical
su = 20kPa, Es= 15MPa, Ep= 2.7GPa, α = 1, νp= 0.27
(Group G, Table 1). The boundary conditions are also given
the same as Group D, VBD/L=2. For HBD/D = 9.4 (see Fig.
10a), the curves coincide with each other. Again, the ηb in
Fig. 10b shows a similar trend to Fig. 10a. It is confirmed
that geostatic stress condition K0 has negligible effect on the
boundary effect for horizontal resistance of a single pile in a
soil container.
Effect of the Poisson’s ratio of pile νp on the boundary
effect
Similar to the above sections, to examine the effect of the
Poisson’s ratio of pile, three cases with different Poisson’s
1066 J. Dong et al.

1.10 1.10

1.08 1.08

1.06
K0 = 1 1.06 p = 0.27
K0 = 0.8 p = 0.21
ηb

ηb
K0 = 0.6 p = 0.16
1.04
1.04

1.02
1.02

1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Hdis/D
Hdis/D
(a) Effect of the geostatic stress condition K0 at HBD/D = 9.4
(a) Effect of the Poisson’s ratio of pile νp at HBD/D = 9.4
1.05
1.06

1.04
1.05

1.03 1.04
K0 = 1
K0 = 0.8
ηb

K0 = 0.6
1.02 1.03 p = 0.27
ηb

p = 0.21
p = 0.16
1.02
1.01

1.01
1.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
1.00
Hdis/D 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
(b)Effect of the geostatic stress condition K0 at HBD/D = 12.5 Hdis/D
Fig. 10 Effect of the the geostatic stress condition K0 on the boundary (b) Effect of the Poisson’s ratio of pile νp at HBD/D = 12.5
effect (K0 = 1,0.8,0.6, HBD/D = 9.4, 12.5, VBD/L = 2, su = 20kPa, Es =
15MPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, νp = 0.27; Group G, Table 1) Fig. 11 Effect of the Poisson’s ratio of pile νp on the boundary effect (νp
= 0.16, 0.21, 0.27, HBD/D = 9.4, 12.5, VBD/L = 2, su = 20kPa, Es =
15MPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, Group H, Table 1)
ratio of pile νp were conducted, giving νp= 0.27, 0.21 and
0.16, but with identical HBD/D = 9.4,12.5, VBD/L = 2, su =
20kPa, Es = 15MPa, Ep = 2.7GPa, α = 1, K0 = 1, (Group H,
Table 1). Similar observations for Fig. 11a and b were obtain- From the results of parameter analysis, influence fac-
ed such that the boundary effect trends a constant with varying tors Ep/Es and Es/su have a different influence on the
Poisson’s ratio at certain Hdis/D. This confirms that Poisson’s boundary effect. Division of the two factors was
ratio of pile has no discernable influence on the boundary adopted for them, in order to achieve the purpose of
effect. reducing the independent variable. Similarly, H BD /D
was merged with Hdis/D. The formula of initial fitting
can be obtained by selecting the appropriate model iter-
Quantified boundary effect on the lateral bearing capacity ation calculation. The formula was fitted again while the
error points of the formula in the original data were left.
Based on the above analyses, it can be concluded that the Thus, a formula was proposed to quantified the boundary
horizontal boundary dimension HBD/D, normalized displace- effect as follows with R2=0.92.
ment Hdis/D and soil property (Ep/Es and Es/su) have an influ-
ence on the boundary effect of single pile horizontal resis-
tance, while the frictional coefficient α, vertical boundary di-  2 −0:3  
Es H BD H dis −0:34
mensions VBD/L, geostatic stress condition K0 and pile ηb ¼ 0:02 þ1 ð1Þ
Poisson’s ratio νp have minimal effects on it. EpSu D2
Numerical analysis of the boundary effect in model tests for single pile under lateral load
Concluding remarks
This paper reported the results from FE analyses using the
ABAQUS package, simulating horizontal resistance of a sin-
gle circular pile in an uniform soil container under lateral
loads. An extensive parametric study was performed varying
properties of clay, pile profile and boundary dimensions to
investigate the boundary effect of a single circular pile in a
soil container. The following conclusions were obtained from
the study:
(1) Lateral boundary (HBD/D) was shown to have significant
influence on pile horizontal bearing capacity, while the
vertical boundary has minimal influence on pile horizon-
tal bearing capacity. To minimize the effect of the lateral
boundary, the distance of the boundary to the container
center should be larger than 15 times the pile diameter.
(2) The effect of the ratio of Young’s modulus of soil to
undrained shear strength of clay Es/su was shown to have
a significant influence on the boundary effect. The
boundary effect is undermined, while the ratio of elastic-
ity modulus of pile to Young’s modulus of soil Ep/Es
decreases. The interface friction coefficient α , the
geostatic stress condition K0 and the Poisson’s ratio of
pile νp are shown to have a negligible effect on the
boundary effect on pile bearing capacity.
(3) A formula was proposed to quantify the boundary effect
of a single circular pile in a soil container.
Acknowledgements The research presented here was undertaken with
the support from the China funding Science and Technology Project of
POWERCHINA Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited (SD2013-
10), the Water Resource Science and Technology Innovation Program of
Guangdong Province (2015-17), and the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities of China (D2171820). This support is grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
Allersma HGB, Kirstein AA, Brinkgreve RBJ, Simon T (1999)
Centrifuge and numerical modelling of horizontally loaded suction
piles. In: The Ninth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
Anagnostopoulos C, Georgiadis M (1993) Interaction of axial and lateral
pile responses. J Geotech Eng 119(4):793–798
Bolton MD, Gui MW, Garnier JP, Corté JF, Bagge G, Laue J, Renzi R
(1999) Centrifuge cone penetration tests in sand. Geotechnique
49(4):543–552
Chandrasekaran SS, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR (2010) Group
interaction effects on laterally loaded piles in clay. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 136(4):573–582
Conte E, Troncone A, Vena M (2013) Nonlinear three-dimensional anal-
ysis of reinforced concrete piles subjected to horizontal loading.
Comput Geotech 49(4):123–133
1067
Cui ZD (2012) Bearing capacity of single pile and in-flight t-bar penetra-
tion for centrifuge modeling of land subsidence caused by the inter-
action of high-rise buildings. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71(3):579–586
Georgiadis M, Anagnostopoulos C (1998) Lateral pressure on sheet pile
walls due to strip load. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(1):95–98
Goit CS, Saitoh M (2013) Model tests and numerical analyses on hori-
zontal impedance functions of inclined single piles embedded in
cohesionless soil. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12(1):143–154
Gourvenec S, Barnett S (2011) Undrained failure envelope for skirted
foundations under general loading. Géotechnique 61(3):263–270
Gourvenec SM, Mana DSK (2011) Undrained vertical bearing capacity
factors for shallow foundations. Géotechnique Lett 1(4):101–108
Kelesoglu MK, Springman SM (2011) Analytical and 3d numerical
modelling of full-height bridge abutments constructed on pile foun-
dations through soft soils. Comput Geotech 38(8):934–948
Kong LG, Zhang LM (2007) Rate-controlled lateral-load pile tests using a
robotic manipulator in centrifuge. Geotech Test J 30(3):192
Ismael NF (1990) Behavior of laterally loaded bored piles in cemented
sands. J Geotech Eng 116(11):1678–1699
Li Z, Haigh SK, Bolton MD (2010) Centrifuge modelling of mono-pile
under cyclic lateral loads. Phys Model Geotech 965–970
Li Z, Bolton MD, Haigh SK (2012) Cyclic axial behaviour of piles and
pile groups in sand. Can Geotech J 49(9):1074–1087
Liu HL, Ren LW, Zheng H (2010a) Full-scale model test on load transfer
mechanism for jet grouting soil-cement-pile strengthened pile. Rock
Soil Mech (In Chinese) 31(5):1395–1401
Liu HL, Tao XJ, Zhang JW, Chen YM (2010b) Behavior of PCC pile
composite foundation under lateral load. Rock Soil Mech (In
Chinese) 31(9):2716–2722
Ma H, Zhou M, Hu Y, Hossain MS (2015) Interpretation of layer bound-
aries and shear strengths for soft-stiff-soft clays using CPT data:
LDFE analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(1)
Matlock H (1970) Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay. Offshore Technology in Civil Engineering’s Hall of Fame
Papers from the Early Years, p 77–94
McVay M, Zhang L, Molnit T (1998) Centrifuge testing of large laterally
loaded pile groups in sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(10):
1016–1026
Phillips R, Valsangkar AJ (1987) An experimental investigation of factors
affecting penetration resistance in granular soils in centrifuge model-
ling. University of Cambridge Department of Engineering
Rahmani A, Pak A (2012) Dynamic behavior of pile foundations under
cyclic loading in liquefiable soils. Comput Geotech 40(3):114–126
Reese L, Van IW, Holtz R (2001) Single piles and pile groups under
lateral loading. Appl Mech Rev 55(1):B9–B10
Rollins KM, Peterson KT, Weaver TJ (1998) Lateral load behavior of full-
scale pile group in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(6):468–478
Rollins KM, Olsen KG, Jensen DH, Garrett BH, Olsen RJ, Egbert JJ
(2006) Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: analysis.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(10):1262–1271
Said ID, De Gennaro V, Frank R (2009) Axisymmetric finite element
analysis of pile loading tests. Comput Geotech 36(1):6–19
Supachawarote C, Randolph M, Gourvenec S (2004) Inclined pull-out
capacity of suction caissons. Proc. 14th int. offshore and polar engi-
neering conf., Mountain View, CA, p 500-506
Tamura S, Higuchi Y, Adachi K, Hayashi Y, Yamazaki M (2009) Effects
of existing piles on vertical bearing capacity of new piles based on
centrifuge tests–Comparison between rough and smooth surfaces
new piles. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 74(645):2039–2044
Teymur B, Madabhushi SPG (2003) Experimental study of boundary
effects in dynamic centrifuge modelling. Geotechnique 53(7):
655–663
Trochanis AM, Bielak J, Christiano P (1991) Three-dimensional nonlin-
ear study of piles. J Geotech Eng 117(3):429–447
1068
Ullah SN, Hu YX, White D, Stanier S (2014) Lateral boundary effect in
centrifuge tests for spudcan penetration in uniform clay. Appl Mech
Mater 553:458
Xing HF, Zhao HW, Ye GB, Xu C (2012) Effect of driving long pre-
stressed high-strength concrete pipe piles in alluvium and its me-
chanical behavior. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71(4):771–781
Xu XT, Lehane BM, Gaudin C, Zhang T, Liu HL (2006) Centrifuge
studies of single and group displacement piles in clay. In:
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics, Hongkong, p 895–900
Zhang L, McVay MC, Lai PW (1999) Centrifuge modelling of laterally
loaded single battered piles in sands. Can Geotech J 36(6):1074–1084
Zhou H, Randolph MF (2006) Large deformation analysis of suction
caisson installation in clay. Can Geotech J 43(12):1344–1357
J. Dong et al.
Zhou M, Hossain MS, Hu Y, Liu HL (2013) Behaviour of Ball
Penetrometers in Uniform and Layered Clays. Geotechnique
63(8):682–694
Zhou M, Hossain MS, Hu Y, Liu HL (2016a) Scale issues and interpre-
tation of ball penetration in stratified deposits in centrifuge testing. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(5):04015103
Zhou M, Hossain MS, Hu Y, Liu HL (2016b) Installation of stiffened
caissons in non-homogeneous clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
142(2):04015079
Zhou M, Liu HL, Hossain MS, Hu Y, Zhang T (2016c) Numerical sim-
ulation of plug formation during casing installation of PCC piles.
Can Geotech J 53(7):1–17